## W-834 01 Jul 13KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-LEP A 01 JUL 13 INSERT LATEST CHANGED PAGES.

DESTROY SUPERSEDED PAGES.

Change bars are placed on the page next to the portion of content that has changed.

Dates of issue for original and changed pages are:

Original

. . . . . 0

. . . . . 01 Jan 06 Change

. . . . . 4

. . . . . 01 Jul 13

Change

. . . . . 1

. . . . . 01 Jul 08

Change

. . . . . 2

. . . . . 01 Apr 10

Change

. . . . . 3

. . . . . 01 Jul 11

Page

No. *Change

No.

Title

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

A

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

i – ii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

1-1 – 1-2

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2-1 – 2-2

. . . . . . . . . . . . 0

3-1 – 3-10

. . . . . . . . . . . 4

4-1 – 4-4

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5-1 – 5-2

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6-1 – 6-6

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

7-1 – 7-6

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

8-1 – 8-4

. . . . . . . . . . . . 2

9-1 – 9-2

. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

10-1 – 10-2

. . . . . . . . . . . 0

Summary of Change(s):

1. Biennial review completed.

* Zero in this column indicates no changes to the current revision. 

### LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGESKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

Original

W845-TOC i 01 JAN 06 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUC TION ............................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 OBJECTIV ES .................................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 VISUAL GUIDANCE SYSTEM S AND DEFINI TIONS ........................................ 3-1

4.0 KC-10 COCKPIT PE RSPECTIVES ................................................................... 4-1

5.0 LANDING I LLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 TRANSITION TO VISUAL ................................................................................. 6-1

7.0 LANDING FROM PR ECISION APPROACHES ................................................. 7.1

8.0 LANDING FROM NON-PR ECISION APPROA CHES ....................................... 8-1

9.0 AFTER TOUCHDOWN CONSIDERAT ION ....................................................... 9.1

10.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 10-1KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

Original

W845-TOC ii 01 JAN 06 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-01 1-1 01 JUL 13 1.0 INTRODUCTION

A maneuver common to all pilots, and one of the most challengi ng any pilot may face, is a high-pressure, must-do, low-vi sibility landing. No matter what the source of the pressure, whether from high- priority missions, low-fuel situations, or rapidly deteriorating weather , pilots will encounter t he need to land successfully in trying visual conditions. The key to success when facing this situation for the first time is being prepared.

To be prepared for the low visibility land ing you must understand the limitations inherent in both yourse lf and your aircraft. You must anticipate those limitations and learn to compensate using all res ources available, applying the sound principles of Crew Resource Managem ent (CRM) where possible. You must experiment with a variety of techniques to determine which will be effective for you and your aircraft. You must practi ce effective aircrew briefings, defining clear crew responsibilities and standardized terminology.

Equally important is to fly a precise ap proach. The aircraft will be stabilized on approach from 500 feet AGL to the runway, (as described in AFI 11-2KC-10V3). If parameters for stabilized approach ar e exceeded the Pilot Flying (PF) will execute a go-around/ missed approach!

1.1 References

The information and procedures 

### contained in this workbook have been extracted from the following publications:

1. T.O. 1C-10(K)A-1
2. AFI 11-202, Volume 3 3. AFM 11-217, Volume I and Volume II 4. DoD Flight Information Publication (Enroute) 5. DoD Flight Information Publication (Terminal)

6. Airman's Information Manual 7. KC-10A Flight Instructor Course 8. Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) 9. AFI 11-2KC-10, Volume 3

10. AFTTP 3-3.KC-10KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-01 1-2 01 JUL 13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

Original

W845-02 2-1 01 JAN 06 2.0 OBJECTIVES

1. After a brief review of an approac h plate and the Flight Information Handbook, use standardized terminology to describe the ant icipated view from the cockpit of the runway environment and Approach Lighting System at various point s on the approach flown.

2. State the limitations to visib ility inherent with the KC-10 and the importance of proper seat position.

3. State the anticipated visual illusion s associated with low visibility landings.

4. Describe different techniques availa ble to the crew to accomplish low visibility landings.

5. Deliver a crew briefing that enabl es your crew to support you while performing a low visibility landing.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

Original

W845-02 2-2 01 JAN 06 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-1 01 JUL 13 3.0 VISUAL GUIDANCE SYSTEMS AND DEFINITIONS

Upon arrival at a 200-foot decision heig ht the aircraft may be over 5,000 feet from the runway intercept point. This equ ates to about 20 seco nds, sufficient time for the crew to exchange op inions on what they are s eeing. Some low visibility landing techniques require the Pilot per forming the landing to divide his time

between instrument cross che ck and the outside visual cues. In this situation he will be depending on other cr ewmembers to quickly and correctly define what they are seeing. Effective comm unication at this time is critical. It is imperative that a thorough crew briefing, which defines specific crew actions and standardized terminology, be conducted. The crew callouts need to be precise

and accurate. Standardized te rminology is the key.

The challenge for the aircraft commander is to be able to review a diagram of any number of visual guidanc e systems and then be able to clearly define the plan and desired callouts by the crew. For ex ample, the Boom Op erator may be used

to call out visual cues either in front of the aircraft or possibly contact with the ground to the side of the aircraft.

Visual guidance systems include the appr oach and runway lighting, vasis or papis, and the runway markings. T hese systems provide the basic visual guidance to transition from instrument f light, using electronic approach aids, to visual flight. The approach and runway lights can provide continuous visual guidance from just short of the MM through the approac h, flare, landing and

rollout.

The Pilot can control the lighting systems ei ther directly or indirectly. If Pilot Controlled Lighting (PCL) is indicated, the first page in the approach book outlines the procedures avail able to the Pilot to contro l the airfield lighting intensity from the cockpit. If PCL lighting is not available, the Pilot can request the Tower to change the light intensities. Lights ar e normally controlled from level 1 to level 5 with level 1 being the lowest intensity and level 5 being the brightest. Normally, in day IFR you can expect level 5 and in night IFR conditions you can expect level 3. In parti al obscurity at night, you may want to consider requesting a brighter light setting. However, be prepared for extremely bright lights if the obscurity is not present. If High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) are installed and the obscurity is not pr esent, the lighting can be almost blinding and bright enough to destroy your night vision.

In fog, the Pilot may find that the airc raft landing lights are c ausing a distraction and impairing his view of the runway lighting systems. The dash one suggests

that in this situation the Pi lot consider turning off the la nding lights. If you find the lights distracting, have the PNF or Flight Engineer turn them off. Many landings have been made with the landing light s inadvertently turned off with no

noticeable effects on the l anding. In most cases th e runway lighting system provides adequate cues for the landing.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-2 01 JUL 13 Approach lighting systems vary widely. A review of Section B of the Flight Information Handbook (FIH) depicts over 30 different systems, each of which could be modified in many different ways. There is one system of approach lighting that is predictabl e. Any runway that has been designated a CATEGORY II Runway also has very restrictive light ing requirements. These runways provide

the best visual cues available. A ca reful analysis of these various lighting systems should provide the Pi lot with all the necessary tools and terminology to analyze most worldwide runway and app roach lighting systems. Reference Figure 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

As you might imagine, accidents have been attributed to Pilots not understanding the approach light system. A contributing cause of one short landing has been attributed to the Pilot not realizing that the Sequenced Flashing Lights (SFL) terminate 1,000 feet short of the runway ra ther than at the end of the runway. Understanding approach light systems helps the Pilot determine his position relative to the runway. Also, some systems can mislead the Pilot as to his position with respect to the runway. Pr oper mission planning wi ll inform the crew as to the type of runway and lighting syst em to expect at the destination. A thorough analysis of ALSF 1 lighting system , for example, would help the Pilot

avoid confusion as to whether he is breaki ng out short of the 1, 000 foot roll bar or

after it.

The FAA authorizes two basic Approach Light Systems (ALS) for use with less than CAT I visibility requirements. These two airfield lighting systems are

authorized for use with CAT II and CAT III operations: High Intensity ALS Category I configuration with sequenced flashers (ALSF 1) and High Intensity ALS Category II configuration with sequenced flashers (ALSF 2). When operating in areas not gover ned by FAA rules, a CA T II runway may have the CALVERT (British High) ALS. These systems consist of a configuration of signal lights starting at the landing threshol d and extending into the approach area a distance of 2400 to 3000 feet for precision instrument runways. The signal lights normally form a single horizontal approach li ght plane at the elevation of the runway end centerline. Th is light plane may be raised or lowered due to terrain features or solid objects within its area. If an object protrudes above the approach light plane, the decision height is moved upwards the same height that the object protrudes. The RV R value is then also adjust ed upward. Airfield and approach lighting can be found in the airp ort sketch data on approach plates. Approach and Runway Lighting systems in formation may also be found in the IFR Supplement and Flight Information Handbook. The Airman Information Manual also contains a good discussion of Approach Lightin g and Runway and Airfield markings.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-3 01 JUL 13 Figure 3-1. Approach Lighting Systems.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-4 01 JUL 13 Figure 3-2. Precision Runway Markings.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-5 01 JUL 13 Figure 3-3. Touchdown Zone and Centerline Lighting.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-6 01 JUL 13 ALSF 1. All lights on the ALSF1 syst em are white until 200 f eet in advance of the threshold. Then the red termination light, r ed wing bar lights, and green threshold lights appear. Sequenced flashers start at 2400/3000 feet out and end 1000 feet from the threshold in both systems (Figure 3-1).

ALSF 2. Notice that the last 1000 feet of the ALSF2 is different that the ALSF1 (Figure 3-1). The red terminating bar and the two pre-threshold red wing bars are removed. Two white approach bars are added on either side of the 50 0-foot centerline bar, forming a roll bar 500 feet out . One row of nine red bars is added on each side of the centerline, at 100-foot interv als, between the 1000-foot roll bar and the threshold. The colored lights are brighter.

CALVERT I & II (BRITISH). A series of steady burning wh ite lights that form an arrow, which ends at the green thres hold lights (Calvert I). The wh ite roll bars are spaced at 500-foot intervals and the system ma y have sequenced flasher lights.

SEQUENCED FLASHING LIGHTS (SFL). Sequenced flashing light are a series of

brilliant blue-white bursts of light flashing in sequence along the approach lights, giving the effect of a ball of light traveling toward the runway. These lights are located in the

outer 2000 feet of both the ALSF 1 and ALSF 2 systems (Fi gure 3-1). They operate on all intensity steps along with the approach lighting system steady burning lights.

THOUSAND FOOT ROLL BAR LIGHTS. A 100-foot wide row of white lights one thousand feet short of the runway. Sequenced fl ashing lights generally terminate at this thousand-foot bar. On an ALSF 2 Approac h Light System, Red Side Row Lights begin

after the thousand-foot roll bar.

RED TERMINATION LIGHTS. On an ALSF 1 Approach Light System these lights appear two hundred feet prior to the green threshold lights and either side of the centerline approach lights.

RED WING BAR LIGHTS. On an ALSF 1 Approach Light System these lights appear one hundred feet prior to the green threshold lights. They are 13 feet wide and are either just outboard of runw ay edge lighting or 75 feet fr om the runway centerline.

RED SIDE ROW LIGHTS. On an ALSF 2 Approach Light System these lights begin after the Thousand Foot Roll bar lights and te rminate nine bars later 100 feet prior to the

runway.

CENTER LEAD-IN APPROACH LIGHT BARS . On an ALSF 1 or ALSF 2 these lights begin as much as 3,000 feet from the runway and terminate 300 feet short of the
pavement . They are typically a 13-foot wide, 5-li ght bar that can be varied in intensity.

RUNWAY CENTERLINE LIGHT SYSTEM (CL). The runway cent erline lighting consists of a single line of white lights inst alled along the runway centerline. The first light is installed 75 feet fr om the threshold and continues do wn the runway, at 50 feetKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-7 01 JUL 13 intervals, to within 75 feet of the rollout end. The lights are alternately red and white

from the last 3000 feet to the last 1000 feet of runway. The last 1000 feet of lights are red (Figure 3-3).

RUNWAY LIGHTING. (Figure 3-3) The runway lightin g available on a particular runway can be found in the airport sketch of an a pproach chart and in the IFR supplement. Jeppesen Airport diagrams have excellent de scriptions of approach and runway lighting systems. See the attached example of Travis AFB airport diagram. (Figure 3-4). In the Additional Runway Information block note th at Runway 21L has High Intensity Runway Lights, Centerline Lighting, ALSF-II Approach Lights, Touc hdown Zone Lighting, and PAPI’s. This particular plate may be out of date but it points out where the information may be found. When you compare it to a FLIP Approach Plate for Travis AFB (Figure 3-5) you see that it's easier to dec ipher the lighting on a Jeppesen Plate.

HIGH INTENSITY RUNWAY LIGHTING (HIRL). The high intens ity runway edge lighting system is the basic type of installation used by the USAF. It defines the lateral and longitudinal limits of the runway. The edge lights are white except for the last 2000 feet, which may be yellow and mark the landing rollout caution zone. The lights marking the longitudinal limits of the runway emit red light toward the runway to indicate the end of the takeoff runway and emit green outward from the runway end to indicate the runway threshold to landing aircraft.

TOUCHDOWN ZONE LIGHTING (TDZL). The touchdown zone lighting system consists of two rows of high intensity li ght bars on each side of the runway centerline

and extend from the threshold down the r unway toward the rollout end for 3000 feet (Figure 3-3).

RUNWAY MARKINGS. Precision runway markings are shown in figure 3-2. These markings are designed to make the landing area more conspicuous and aid the Pilot in aligning the airplane and determining if a safe landing is possible. A precision runway

contains all of the marki ng elements: Threshold, Touchdown Zone, Aim Point, Centerline, and Runway Edge.

In addition, Pilots should review the following. - FLIP General Planning, C hapter 2, Airport lighting - FLIP Flight Information Handbook, Section B, Lighting Systems Legend - FLIP Terminal Approach Publ ication, General InformationKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-8 01 JUL 13 Figure 3-4. Airport Diagram – Travis AFB

.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-9 01 JUL 13 Figure 3-5. FLIP Appro ach Plate – Travis AFB.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-03 3-10 01 JUL 13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-04 4-1 01 JUL 13 4.0 KC-10 COCKPIT PERSPECTIVES

Every aircraft has a unique geometry that defines the Pilot’s view. Understanding the restrictions this imposes is important for every Pilot to land successfully in low visibility conditions. Different seat positions, aircraft configuration, glide slope angle, glide slo pe transmitter location, CG, flap and slat setting, crosswind, crab angles, gro ss weight, approach speeds and nonprecision approach course a lignment affect the Pilot per spective of the landing

environment. The Pilot should consider the effect of all these parameters as they

affect his aircraft.

4.1 Seat Position

One of the keys to landing succe ssfully in low visibility conditions is seat position. Cockpit cutoff or downward vision angles vary with changing seat position and

thus the visual cues a Pilot will see woul d change. If the seat height is properly adjusted in the KC-10, the Pilot will have a downward vision angle of 20 degrees. If the seat is set one inch too low, this ang le is cut to 16.5 degrees. If the seat is
three inches too low, the downward vision angle is cut to onl y 9 degrees (Figure 4-1). It can be seen that a Pilot seat set lower t han the recommended height could prevent the Pilot fr om acquiring the visual references necessary to complete the approach and landing.

At 200 ft radio altimeter, on a 3 degree glid e slope, with flaps 35 degrees and a deck angle of 5.2 degrees, the main gear will be 200 ft above ground level and the glide slope antenna will be about 224 ft. (The glide slope antenna is located

in the nose below the Pilots while the r adio altimeter measures the height of the main gear above the ground). At this altitude the aircraft should be between

3400 and 3600 feet off the approach end of the runway, depending on the location of the glide slope transmitter. The downward visual angle will prevent the Pilot from seeing the lights in the first 992 feet in front of the aircraft (Figure 4- 2). With an RVR of 2400, the ground segm ent visible to the Pilot will be approximately 1,394 feet. On this appr oach, with the seat height properly adjusted, the Pilot should be able to see 1 or 2 center lead-in approach light bars. However, be aware that the visual segm ent is also a function of glide slope angle, glide slope transmitte r location, CG, gross wei ght, flap setting and crab. Sequenced flashers and the 1,000 foot roll bar should be in sight.

A technique to improve the downward vi sion angle is to use 50 flaps for the landing as this creates a slightly lower deck angle on final than flaps 35.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-04 4-2 01 JUL 13 Further lowering results in steadily worsening visibility as in the following table:

**Seat Height Down Vision Angle** 

**Correct**

**1 inch lower**

**2 inches lower**

**3 inches lower 20.0**  °

**16.5** °

**12.8** °

**9.5** °

Figure 4-1. Eye Reference Plane



### .

The diagram shows that 1,506 feet of visible ground segment would be reduced to 1,074 feet due to the pilot's seat being only one inch too low. 2,400 200

2,400 1,074

1,506KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-04 4-3 01 JUL 13 The effect on the visible ground segment is illustrated below:

PILOT EYE ORIENTATION WITH GROUND (DISTANCES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATED) FLAPS 35 (1.3 Vs)

Body angle at touchdown position (Altitude

at 8 ° pitch angle, struts extended

Figure 4-2. Visual Ground Segments Approach/Landing. 200 FT R A

NOTE: With 20 ° down vision, at 200 feet the pilot will have visual reference of 6 or 7 approach lights.

Body angle at touchdown position (Altitude at 8 ° pitch angle, struts extended) 200

1,394 992

224

2400 RVR 231KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-04 4-4 01 JUL 13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-05 5-1 01 JUL 13 5.0 LANDING ILLUSIONS

The most insidious landing illusions for a Pilot conducting a low visibility landing

are the ones that cue him to “duck under” or dive prior to the runway. This is particularly hazardous for a large aircraft because the margin of safety is very small. A review of Figure 5-1 shows that with an ILS approach carried down to Runway Point of Intercept (RPI), (thus not adjusted for proper aim point and threshold crossing height) the actual thres hold crossing height is quite low. If the Pilot relies entirely on vi sual cues and abandons his instruments and dips below this glide path, a landing short of the runway is a strong possibility. There are

several influences that cue the Pilo t to duck-under. Understanding these influences will help you re sist them and rely on your instruments while performing a composite crosscheck of airc raft instrument and vi sual references.

Approach light systems are inadequate for providing altitude cues but unfortunately the subconscious mind cannot always be convinced otherwise. We are conditioned to believe that dim lig hts communicate distan ce. But in a low visibility situation attributed to partial obscu rity, that dim light will not be a reliable determination of height or distance. Thus the Pilot, upon picking up his first partially obscured lights, is cued to desc end to get the norma lly bright lights he

has been conditioned to see - the re sult is the classic duck-under.

Pilots are used to establishing an aim po int in the windscreen w hen landing. In a low visibility situation with only a few light s visible, the tendency is to place the farthest visible light as the aim point. However at 2400-foot slant range visibility and at 200 feet radio altimeter on a precisi on glide path, the farthest light visible will be well short of the pav ed surface. If the Pilot ac cepts this poor visual cue for his aim point then he will land short in a classic duck-under.

Even in excellent visibility a Pilot may be subconsciously cued to duck-under. In a "black hole" approach conducted over water, using an inadequate ALS, or even into a very bright urban horizon wher e night vision may be impaired, a Pilot may establish a flat glide path due to the absence of visu al cues in the foreground. This is why AFI 11-2KC-10V3 di ctates that we fly the most precise approach available during night and marginal weather operations. Visual or VFR approaches conducted away from home stat ion under these conditions require visual guidance to help prevent this phenomenon.

All of these constitute a subconscious response by the Pilot that he must anticipate and overcome in a low-visibilit y landing. Proper ant icipation will allow

the Pilot to trust his instru ments instead of his reactions to the visual cues he is receiving.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-05 5-2 01 JUL 13 

### APPROXIMATE TOUCHDOWN POINT (NO FLARE) ASSUMING G/S

**TRANSMITTER AT 1000'**

**FLAPS**

**(NO DLC)**

**(DEGREES) GLIDE PATH** 

**ANGLE**

**(DEGREES) ESTIMATED** 

**BODY ANGLE**

**(1) (2) ANTENNA HEIGHT** 

**Ha, AT THRESHOLD**

**(FEET) MAIN GEAR HEIGHT** 
**Hg, AT THRESHOLD**

**(1) (2) MAIN GEAR TOUCH** 

**DOWN POINT, T**

**(1) (2)**

**50 2.5**  **5.7 4.7**  **44 14**  **16 326**  **365**

**35 2.5**  **6.7 5.7**  **44 13**  **14 287**  **326**

**50 2.75**  **5.45 4.45**  **48 19**  **20 387**  **422**

**35 2.75**  **6.45 5.45**  **48 17**  **19 352**  **387**

**50 2.5**  **5.2 4.2**  **52 23**  **25 438**  **471**

**35 2.5**  **6.2 5.2**  **52 21**  **23 405**  **438**

**(1) C.G. @ 11.6% MAC**
**(2) C.G. @ 29.0% MAC**

Figure 5-1. ILS Approach

. PIL O T E YE (AN TEN NA + 7 FT) H EIG HT

AN TEN NA H EIG H T A T TH R ESH O LD

ILS G L IDE SLO P E

ILS G L IDE SLO P E AN G LE

G L ID ESL O PE TR AN SMITTER MA IN G EAR

PA TH

MA IN G EAR

TOU CH DOW N

POINT MA IN G EAR

H EIG HT AT

TH RES HOL D H a

H g

T

1000 F T AIR PLA NE B O DY A NG L E

TH RES HOL DKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-06 6-1 01 JUL 13 6.0 TRANSITION TO VISUAL

As the Pilot approaches DH or the MAP, he must make the decision to continue the approach or execute a missed approach. The decision to continue the approach is not, however, a commitment to land. Comm and guidance is clear on requirements necessary to commence an approach and to continue the approach below minimums, but it is a highly subjective decision by eac h Pilot on what constitutes sufficient visual

cues to land.

Landing is a visual maneuver. Instruments can get you close, but the final flare maneuver is visual. Reference to Figure 5.1 shows that the consequence of maintaining the electronic glideslope is to cross the th reshold below 50 feet. . The KC-10 landing gear will cross the threshold approximately 25 feet below the glid eslope antenna. The FARs require a warning on the approach plate for Group 4 aircraft (DC-10s) if our wheel crossing height at the threshold is less than 20 feet. Even if the glide path were kept in the pilot’s crosscheck, on most runways bei ng “on glide path” on your instruments will put the gear too close to the r unway threshold. The Dash one states the Pilot will plan to cross the threshold at 50 feet and to accomplish this, the Pilot must establish an aim point 1500 to 1800 feet down the r unway, a distinctly visual m aneuver. If available, a 3- bar VASI can help. But the far bar on a 3- bar VASI is located 2,000 feet down the runway and thus may not be visi ble during the transition to a visual aim point. In a low visibility approach situation, the VASI's are not much hel p because they are acquired too late, if at all, but on a VFR day, they greatly aid in fl ying a visual glidepath. The PAPI glide path angle is normally set for the type of aircraft that normally transits the airfield. Without information published in the airf ield facility directory stating that they’re aligned for group 4 aircraft, it is better to fly three white an one red light than two of each color on final and realize that this may transiti on to 4 white lights the closer we get to the runway depending on how far down the runway the lights are posi tioned. Remember that whatever glideslope you ar e using, you must fly the fi nal portion slight ly high in order to obtain the required 50' TCH.

What visual cues does the Pilot need to consider himself visu al? To be a visual maneuver, two things are needed. The Pilot must first have adequate visual cues to project an accurate horizon, and second he mu st be able to establis h an aim point in his windscreen. In both cases, he does not nec essarily have to see a horizon or the touchdown zone, but he must be able to project it. As the Pilot trains and accomplishes numerous landings, his subconscious records the required cues to be able to do these two things. What are those vi sual cues? For each Pilot, they differ. What is acceptable for some is unacceptable for others. It is a very subjective training response and

because it occurs at the subconsci ous level, in some ways, it is out of the Pilot's hands. As the Pilot gains more experience and time in the aircraft, his required cues may change as his sub-conscious lear ns to accept different cues. The Pilot must discover

what cues he needs and establish limits for himself.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-06 6-2 01 JUL 13 6.1 Determining Required Visibility

AFI 11-202, Volume 3, states that RVR reports (feet or equivalent meters), when given for a particular runway, apply to all takeoffs and landings on, and approaches to, the runway. Prevailing Visi bility (PV) may be used when RVR is not reported. For circling approaches, PV s hall be used. Whatever is reported, slant range visibility from the Pilot’ s perspective may be much less. When cleared for, or established on a segment of the approach and the weather is reported or observed to be below approach minimums, the Pilot has the latitude to continue and attempt a landing. Ther efore, within the confines of the regulation, each Pilot must subjectively determine what constitutes sufficient visual cues to accomplish a safe landing (Figure 6-1).KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-06 6-3 01 JUL 13 Figure 6-1. Cones of Vision - Various RVR’s and Altitudes.INNERMARKERINNERMARKERINNERMARKERINNERMARKERINNERMARKERINNERMARKERKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-06 6-4 01 JUL 13 Although not restrictive for Air Force Pi lots, Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) define required flight visibilit y quite differently. "Flight visibility means the average forward horizontal distance, from the cock pit of an aircraft in flight, at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day and prominent lighted objects may be seen and identified at night." How can a Pilot determine flight visibility?

This FAR suggests the Pilot evaluate his fli ght visibility if he is to continue his approach. Without visual cues exterior to the aircraft, this is not possible, so he must continually assess his flight visi bility on short final when he begins to

receive visual cues. A count of the c enter lead in lights, taking into account down vision angles, could allow an analysis of flight visibility. Considering the workload, this may be somewhat difficul t. A quicker method would be to brief a 150 foot call. The green runway threshol d lights should be in sight if the RVR

exceeds 2400 feet. At the EGPWS 100-foot call, the first thousand feet of the runway would be visible if the RVR is 2400 feet.

6.2 The Decision to Continue

Command guidance states "Do not c ontinue the approach below minimums unless the aircraft is in a position to make a safe landing and the runway environment is in sight," (AFI 11-2-KC10, Volume 3). The Air Force provides further guidance on the defin ition of runway environment in AFI 11-202, Volume 3, and “continuing an approa ch below DH/DA/MDA is not authorized until

sufficient visual reference with the runway environment has been established and the aircraft is in a position to execute a safe landing. The runway

environment consists of one or mo re of the follo wing elements:.

(a) The approach light system, except that the Pilot may not descend below

100 feet above the touchdown zone el evation using the approach lights

as a reference unless the red terminat ing bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

(b) The threshold, threshold ma rkings or threshold lights.

(c) The runway end identifier lights.

(d) The visual approach slope indicator.

(e) The touchdown zone or touchd own zone markings or touchdown zone lights.

(f) The runway or runway markings.

(g) The runway lights.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-06 6-5 01 JUL 13 If at 100 feet, the only lights in sight are those describ ed in paragraph (a), the

crew should be aware that t he flight visibility is much lower than required by the approach and if the decision is made to land it should be done with caution. The red terminating bars are 200 fe et short of the threshol d lights. Reference to figure 6-1 shows that this woul d equate to less than a 1200 foot RVR.

6.3 Transition

The transition from instrument flight to vi sual flight is a chal lenging one. During this time, the Pilot must transition from a pure instrument crosscheck to a visual crosscheck. During that transition, he must combine elements of both into a composite crosscheck. Crew coordinati on can be critical to support the Pilot during the landing. AFMAN 11-217, Volume 1, suggests three techniques to

assist the Pilot. In the first case t he copilot would fly t he approach and make required callouts while the ot her pilot looks for visual cues and either directs a go-around or takes the aircraft for landing. A second technique is to have one pilot fly the approach all the way to landin g, while the pilot monitoring stays on instruments and provides inputs to help the PF avoid a duck-under. The autopilot is used in the third technique to a point where a go-around is accomplished or it is disconnected for landing.

The approach and runway light systems are designed to help the Pilot align with the runway and then project an aim point and a horizon, but are unacceptable for establishing vertical guidance. Visu al glide slope system s are designed for relatively good visibility condi tions. They are ineffectiv e close in and in the case

of the far bar on a 3-bar VASI which is di splaced 2,000 feet from the threshold, may not be seen in low visibility.

Therefore, the most import ant instruments to crossc heck during a low visibility landing are the ones that provide vertical guidance. When practi cing low visibility landings, it is imperative t hat you monitor your radio al timeter, altimeter, VSI, and if available, the ILS glide slope. As a technique, you may consider coordinating specific crew callouts if parameters you have estab lished are exceeded. For example, you may brief the Pilot monitoring the landing to callout variations to your calculated descent rates in excess of 200 fpm low or 500 fpm high. This will protect you from visual illusions that c ue you to duck-under t he appropriate glide path. You may also brief t he Boom Operator to look for specific visual cues and make appropriate call out s when the EGPWS states "100 feet;" thereby, monitoring your vertical descent with respect to the runway.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-06 6-6 01 JUL 13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-07 7-1 01 JUL 13 7.0 LANDING FROM PRECISION APPROACHES

Precision approaches match up well with Approach Light Systems (ALS). Where even a well-designed ALS is ineffective in providing vertical guidance, precision approaches provide it with g lide slope information. Understanding the accuracy of both course and glide slope (Figure 7.1) information is critical in analyzing and incorporating this information into a co mposite crosscheck. When flying a PAR, controller information is provided to t ouchdown, making a PAR very effective during transition to a visual landing.

Although the KC-10 is restrict ed to Category I (CAT I) precision approaches, it is important to understa nd the capabilities of CAT II qualified ground equipment. CAT I precision approaches can be desig ned to be flown to 200 feet above the highest elevation in the touchdo wn zone with visibility as low as 1800 feet RVR. Category II can be flown down to 100 feet above with visibility as low as 1200

feet RVR.

The choice to continue at the decis ion height must be made based on the

instrument indications and visual cues. If you are in a position to make a normal landing and you have the runway environ ment in sight you may continue the approach, but it does not commit you to l and. If you break out at 200 feet and you need considerable maneuvering to align with the runway - you are not in the "Slot", and that will necessitate a missed approach. You cert ainly don't want to start banking the aircraft to line up with th e runway when you're only a few feet off the ground. Putting a wingtip in t he dirt will ruin your day. You should

establish criteria to continue based on very little maneuvering required to stabilize for landing. A precise approach is required if you are going to land with

weather conditions at minimums.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-07 7-2 01 JUL 13 Figure 7-1. ILS Characteristics

.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-07 7-3 01 JUL 13 7.1 Precision Approach Radar (PAR)

A PAR is designed to be used as a landing aid, rather than an aid for sequencing and spacing of aircraft. A PAR may be used as a primary landing aid, or it may be used for monitoring other types of appr oaches. It is designed to display range, azimuth and elevation information.

The radar system uses a tw o-antenna array, one for scanni ng a vertical plane, and the other for scanning horiz ontally. Since the range is limited to 10 miles, azimuth to 20, and elevation to 7, only the final approach course area is covered. Normally, the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) provides radar vectors to the final approach course. The PAR radarscope is divided into two parts. The upper half presents altitude and distance information, and the lower half presents

azimuth and distance.

A PAR is one in which a controller pr ovides highly accurate navigational guidance in azimuth and elevat ion to the Pilot. Pilots are given headings to fly, to direct them to, and keep their aircra ft aligned with the extended centerline of the landing runway. They are told to anticipate glide path interception approximately 10 to 30 seconds before it occurs and when to start descent. The published Decision Height will be given only if the Pilot requests it. If the aircraft

is observed to deviate above or below the glide path or le ft or right of centerline, the Pilot is given the relative amount of deviation by use of terms "slightly" or "well" and is expected to adjust t he aircraft's heading/vertical speed as necessary to return to the glide path or centerline. Range from touchdown is given at least once each mile. If an ai rcraft is observed by the controller to proceed outside of specified safety zone limits in azimuth and/or elevation and continue to operate outside these prescribed limits, the Pilot w ill be directed to execute a missed approach or to fly a sp ecified course unless the Pilot has the runway environment (runway, appr oach lights, etc.) in sight.

7.2 Instrument Landing System (ILS)

The ILS consists of two highly direct ional transmitting systems that provide localizer and glide slope guidance (Fi gure 7-1). For CAT II operations, FAA specifications call for a minimum amount of variation in signal strength. They

also call for minimum interference to the transmitted signals from outside

sources.

LOCALIZER. The localizer signal is adjus ted between 3 and 6 degrees to provide a linear width of 70 0 feet at the runway threshold. During CAT II operations, ILS critical areas are kept clear of surface traffic to prevent signal interference. Figure 7-2 shows the lo calizer and glideslope critical areas.

GLIDESLOPE. The glide slope transmitter prov ides guidance in the vertical plane and radiates its signal principally in the dire ction of the approach. Any

instrument indications of a glide path other than thos e within the width of the localizer course should be disregarded. For CAT II operations, the optimum glideKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-07 7-4 01 JUL 13 slope threshold crossing height of t he receiving antennae is 50 feet. The maximum is 60 feet and a height as lo w as 47 feet may be used at some locations. This threshold crossing height normally requires a glide slope angle of 2.75 to 3.0 degrees. The Category II ILS glideslope becomes a hyperbolic curve at approximately 100 feet and flares 18 to 27 feet in t he air. Figure 7-2 shows the glide slope critical area.

MARKER BEACONS - In addition to the outer marker (OM) and the middle marker (MM), an inner marker (IM), is provided at each CAT II runway. It is located almost directly be low the 100-foot decision poin t. Aural identification is six "dits" per second and visual identificat ion is on the white inner marker beacon light. The marker beacons provide info rmation only and are not required for the approach.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-07 7-5 01 JUL 13 NOTE: 1. Location of hold lines when operati ons are permitted on a 400' parallel taxiway.

2. Or to the end of the runway, whichever is greater



### .

Figure 7-2

. CAT II Critical Areas.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-07 7-6 01 JUL 13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 2

W845-08 8-1 01 APR 10 8.0 LANDING FROM NON- PRECISION APPROACHES

The weaknesses of the approach light system (ALS) are minimized during a precision approach but they are amplifie d during a non-precision approach. An ALS provides poor vertical guidance and a non-precision approach provides none. To aggravate the si tuation, non-precision c ourse guidance can be very imprecise depending on locati on of the navigation aid providing final approach course guidance. Also, a non-precision can still qualify as a straight-in approach if the course is as much as 30 degrees o ff of the runway heading. This requires the Pilot to do significant maneuveri ng while trying to perform a controlled descent to landing.

To land successfully from the non-precis ion approach requires significantly more planning than the precision approach. The Pilot must anticipate where his first visual cues will appear in his windscreen. The Pilot's first cues may even be

seen in a side window if the course is 30 degrees off runway heading and is amplified by the effects of crosswinds. Without anticipation of where his visual cues will appear, the Pilot may not acquire the field visually.

The Pilot must strive to fly accurate final approach courses. Even one degree of error from the prescribed course may make it impossible for the Pilot to acquire the runway environment and maneuver to land. As an example, analyze the TACAN approach to runway 3L at Travis AFB (Figure 8-1). Using the 60-1 rule shows that for every degree off course at 1 NM represents 100 feet. One degree

off course at the TACA N VDP is 290 feet.

The necessary cues the Pilot needs to continue the approach below MDA may

also increase. If the Pilot must maneuver the aircraft significantly, he must acquire significantly more visual cues to enable him to project a horizon sooner than on other approaches. Runway alignmen t may be difficult if the runway has a poor or non-existent Approac h Lighting System. With the localizer portion of a published ILS being the notable exception, navigation aids will not be useful for alignment once departing the MDA. The Pilot should gi ve careful consideration to departing the MDA with only a few cues available. There must be enough cues available to find an aim point and pr oject a horizon. You cannot properly evaluate a visual glide path without the abi lity to project a horizon. The Pilot must consider himself visual before departing the MDA.

Under these conditions, the Pilot should set higher standar ds for what constitutes the runway environment for continuing on a non-precision versus a precision approach. From t he higher altitudes of an MDA t he Pilot has a better chance of seeing the VASI's for cross-c hecking the visual glidepath.

Without electronic or visual glide path information, the descent must be well planned. Most Controlled Fl ight into Terrain (CFIT) accidents occur on nonprecision approaches and of t hose, vertical navigation errors is the primary cause. An inflight dete rmination of acceptable visibility to conduct a visualKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 2

W845-08 8-2 01 APR 10 descent from MDA must be considered. A VDP and descent rate should be calculated. Recognize that when the decision to continue the approach below

the MDA is made the Pilot must immediately transition from level flight to a glide path. Without a horizon to establish a controlled pitch change, the Pilot must estimate the initial pitch change on the ADI. This may generate visual illusions

that must be controlled and a composite crosscheck to verify proper descent

rates. Crew actions should be coordinat ed to ensure a proper descent rate. The Pilot must acquire an aim point as soon as possible in order to verify and adjust the glide path.

Both the alignment maneuver and t he descent must be accomplished immediately. The Pilot should accept that he needs many visual cues to simultaneously project a horizon, acquire an aim point, and safely maneuver the aircraft to align with the runway. The Pilot must develop a sense of what is acceptable through practice in the simulator.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 2

W845-08 8-3 01 APR 10 Figure 8-1.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 2

W845-08 8-4 01 APR 10 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-09 9-1 01 JUL 13 9.0 AFTER TOUCHDOWN CONSIDERATIONS

Main gear touchdown does not relieve the Pi lot of all the chall enges of operating in low visibility conditions. Reported vi sibility for your approach and actual conditions may differ. Even the reported RVR, as measured from the approach end transmissometer, does not report what you actually see. It measures visibility to the side of the runway and 12 to 16 feet above the approach end of the runway. RVR measured at the departure end is advisory only and may be significantly worse than the approach end vi sibility. At touchdown the Pilot's eye position is at 36 feet and after lowering th e nose is still at 20 feet. All of this contributes to potential challenges. Th e approach and landing is not complete until the aircraft is slowed to a taxi sp eed and ready to turn off the runway.

Recognizing the potential challenges after landing st resses the importance of landing on speed, on centerli ne, in the touchdown zone and on runway heading if in a crosswind. After a stable beginning, the Pilot can better predict his position and the level of braking ne cessary to stop the aircraft. If in doubt, maximum braking should be applied. Remember that braki ng is poor on wet rubber deposits in the vicinity of touchdown zones.

After touchdown there are other visual c ues to aid the Pilo t in determining his relative position on the runway. If inst alled, TDZ Lighting ends at 3,000 feet, cuing the Pilot to whether the landing was too l ong. Runway edge lights communicate caution beginning at 2,000 foot remaining and, if installed, the centerline lights give additional warni ngs at 3,000 and 1,000 feet remaining.

Again, careful planning and cr ew briefings will alert the Pi lot and crew as to what visual guidance exist to help determine your location on the runway during

rollout.

Even taxiing on the ramp c an be hazardous as ramp lighting systems are highly non-standard. As an example, so me airfields provide centerline blue taxi lights. Air Force ramps and taxiways use blue lights only for edge lighting. Confusion over taxi lights can lead to taxi accidents or runway incursions.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

CH 4

W845-09 9-2 01 JUL 13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKKC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

Original

W845-10 10-1 01 JAN 06 10.0 SUMMARY

Prior to landing in Low Visibi lity conditions, while still at altitude, the crew should be thoroughly briefed on the approach and w hat to expect. Approach lighting system, runway lighting, r unway markings and runway length and width should be reviewed. Emphasis on appropriate call outs will help the Pilot determine his position and altitude relative to the runway. Every crewmember should be actively involved in monitoring the approach and landing.

This workbook has emphasized that the decision processes pertaining to low visibility landings are highly subjective . Every Pilot must develop his own personal criteria for continuing an appr oach and landing. Regulatory guidance reflects this as well. Therefore, th is workbook provides few hard and fast answers to the challenges ever y Pilot will face. But, it can help you to define the challenges, thus allowing you to antici pate the problems and pe rhaps allow good

CRM to overcome them. Pr eparation and practice coor dinating crew efforts in the simulator, in trying conditions, will give you the confidence to succeed in actual conditions. In day-to-day operat ions, crewmembers can be trained to scan for specific visual cues and to use standardized terminology in mandatory call outs, thus preparing t hem for an encounter with c hallenging conditions. The following section suggests activities you c an practice in the simulator to help you prepare for that challenging Low Visibility approach.

10.1 Suggested Simulator Exercises

The following activities are suggested to help the crew gain experience in and anticipate the challenges of low-visibility approaches and landings. Weather conditions and visibility are set sli ghtly above minimums for the approaches.

1. On a precision approach, with a strong headwind, an d a 275,000 # gross weight, fly a 35/Ext approach to a DH and select position freeze. Vary aircraft configuration, CG, crosswi nds, visibility and Approach Lighting System models. Select snapshot ta ke and reposition the aircraft to fly several approaches and landings. In crease gross weight to 432,000# with a 0/Ret configuration; c hange the strong headwind to a 5-knot tailwind and release. Challenge the crew to call out visual references, using standardized terminology, during the approach at this increased airspeed.

2. Repeat the process for a non-precis ion approach. Demonstrate visual

references at both the VD P and MAP. Also observe changes in the visual picture as the aircraft transitions from le vel flight to a glide path. Select an approach with the final appr oach guidance not alig ned with the runway and adjust crosswinds to move the view even further from the center of

the windscreen. The TA CAN Approach to Runway 6 at McGuire AFB or the TACAN Approach to Runway 3L at Travis AFB are good examples.KC-10 Aircrew Training System Low Visibility Approach and Landing

Original

W845-10 10-2 01 JAN 06 Put in a strong North wind and the drift correction w ill put the runway far right of center in the windscreen.

3. Adjust minimums for ALS inoper ative and fly approaches without approach lighting.